Are Tartans Protcected in Law?

[macwilkin]

Her Majesty the Queen has invited all people who do not have a tartan of their own to wear the Royal Stewart. Windsors being bad winners by letting the rabble wear the competing houses tartan?

As to a throw that matches the drapes: Balmoral Castle is a kleidoscope of royal stewart (in normal and in dress) as carpet, wallpaper and apolstery.

I would agree with you, that someone who has a restricted tartan might be bothered. Royal Stewart is definitely not restricted or treated by anyone with any reverence. So, go ahead, make a coat for your highland terrier out of it.

Well, yes and no...technically, the Stewart Royal tartan is a military tartan, and worn by pipers of Scottish regiments with a Royal designation -- the KOSB, The Royal Highland Regiment (Black Watch), the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, etc.) Over time, like the Government Sett, it has become a "public" tartan, and is now everywhere. I can't say I've ever seen any sort of official proclomation by HM the Queen authorizing the Stewart Royal as a "general" tartan, though -- if you have it, would you please post the reference?

The article on the Tartans Authority's web site about Royal Tartans reiterates the same point:

http://www.tartansauthority.com/Web/...yalTartans.asp

This web site lists the regiments (UK and Commonwealth) that wear or have worn the Royal Stewart:

http://www.regiments.org/tradition/tartans/stuartro.htm

An article from September 2004 on the British Monarchy's official site has this to say:

The Royal Stewart and Balmoral Tartans are recognised as 'royal' tartans, The Royal Stewart is considered the tartan of the Royal House of Stewart (or Stuart). -- http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3370.asp

As for reverence, it is treated with great reverence by those regiments awarded it by the sovereign, especially the pipers, such as Piper Daniel Laidlaw VC of the King's Own Scottish Borderers:

http://www.kosb.co.uk/history3.htm

Considering that these regiments are under threat at present, it's reverence is even more powerful.

I'm not trying to start anything here, just simply pointing out that while the tartan is readily available these days for everyone to wear, nevertheless there is some pretty strong symbolism behind it, so it's best to follow Jimmy's mantra, "know your tartan!", if you do choose to wear it.

Regards,

Todd

[arrogcow]

Will you get locked up in the US for making a pair of jeans or a vest out of the American flag? No probably not, but I know some people who would think that was just in bad taste. Both the flag and tartan are symbols to some who may be offended by things they feel are disrespectful even if not illegal.

Technicaly you could be. http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/s...7&page=2&pp=10
Adam

[jkdesq]

Hey Todd,

Hmmmmmm. I thought the whole "anyone can wear Royal Stewart" was gospel truth, but I can't find it anywhere. I must have been confused. What I have found is that it is appropriate for any subject of the Queen to wear it -- that includes me, but not you, I guess. I'll let you know if I find the more general statement that I thought had been made.

As for reverance, I guess one just gets fed up with the ubiquity of Royal Stewart. Thanks for affirming that there are those who don't see it as the "eine kleine nochten muzic" of the tartan world -- here I go, upsetting Mozart fans now.

[Archangel]

The little bit I do know is that we are discussing intellectual property for the most part, in terms of designs. They have to registered to the designer or they have a rough time proving ownership. There is a procedure and a fee for doing this in most countries. As noted above, that then applies to most countries. There are variations within the system in terms of how long the ownership can be held and who can hold it. It's not completely consistent internationally but close.
I'm being asked to pay a fee for an item I bought from the UK, in Canada the copyright laws would no longer apply because of the item's age.
These laws primarily concern commercial use. Discussion about flags would be a different law, I don't think there is a question of ownership of the Stars and Stripes but the owner has put limitations on its use.

[macwilkin]

Hey Todd,

Hmmmmmm. I thought the whole "anyone can wear Royal Stewart" was gospel truth, but I can't find it anywhere. I must have been confused. What I have found is that it is appropriate for any subject of the Queen to wear it -- that includes me, but not you, I guess. I'll let you know if I find the more general statement that I thought had been made.

As for reverance, I guess one just gets fed up with the ubiquity of Royal Stewart. Thanks for affirming that there are those who don't see it as the "eine kleine nochten muzic" of the tartan world -- here I go, upsetting Mozart fans now.

As for the Stewart/Stuart thing, I think we should just drop the "Stuart" spelling. The only reason it exists is that in the 17th Century, the French alphabet didn't have a "w" and those at the French court needed to be able to spell Mary Stewart's last name. French now has a "w", so we can drop the superflorous spelling. My suggestion.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Stewart Hunting, which is also technically a military tartan, worn by the Royal Scots, the Canadian Scottish and the old 10th Gurkha Rifles, as well as being a "general" tartan.

I agree; it's a shame that a tartan with such meaning has been so commericalized ad nausem.

Cheers,

Todd

[clancelt]

I prefer Stewart myself, my best man was a Stewart and that is how he spelled it. I only listed it as "Royal Stuart" because that is how I have always seen it listed as a Tartan. I always thought it was adopted as the spelling after Mary Queen of Scots? This is kinda trailing off subject.

Is there actually a law(Like we have with the US flag) that is commonly ignored, or is there no law?

My point was I thought it was just bad taste to use a tartan you had no ties to, or use another family's tartan in a form that the owners would find offensive(which may include the act of just wearing it). Is there in fact some legal recourse? I don't know. I was always lead to believe that at one time there was but now it is mostly ignored.

I would use my brother for example. He has a kilt in the Wallace tartan. We have no Wallaces in our line that I know of. He just likes the tale of William Wallace and the look of the kilt. As proud as he is of it and with the respect he wears it with, I would find it hard to believe any Wallace clansman would feel disrespected by him wearing it. In fact, I would think them proud to have him represent the Wallace name but that's not my call. Now if he was a drunken idiot at every celtic gathering, I'm sure a member of the Wallace clan would catch wind of it and even if there is nothing legally they could do here in the US(not that I know of anyway) they could make things difficult for him. Like getting him barred from events.

My view is that tartans are not protected by law, they are protected by pride.

[Archangel]

Is there actually a law(Like we have with the US flag) that is commonly ignored, or is there no law?


My view is that tartans are not protected by law, they are protected by pride.

Generally, go with no law, especially if you want one like the US flag laws. Assume recent, last fifty years, designs are protected. Protection really only applies to mill, or retailer, that buys rights to use design, i.e. manufacture it or sell it. Same way you never see the copyright fee when you buy a car, Beretta, for example got paid by GM.

Back to the beauty of kilts, worn by strippers and soldiers, for mud-larking or meeting the Queen (hmmn, that would be some party, change the subject!)

[Jimmy Carbomb]

My point was I thought it was just bad taste to use a tartan you had no ties to, or use another family's tartan in a form that the owners would find offensive(which may include the act of just wearing it).

That's a notion and an attitude that's VERY unpopular around here. There are many more kilt wearers that have no ties to the Celts, but still wear tartans... and they're quite adament in defending their ability to wear whatever they damn-well please.

Although I completely agree with your point, it's one that's difficult to impress on others with no relation to the tradition. They see the tartan as a mere material pattern. It's no different than wearing a striped shirt.

We've attempted to educate though this sight, and give the history and heritage (Todd and Matt) that accompanies the garment. With that, you can only HOPE that readers will understand the significance.

If kilt-wearers can't completely understand the importance and the heritage with the tartans... how in the world could anyone expect a company that makes profit from it to do any honor to it? This is why I can't help but respect those who wear the UtiliKilts / Pittsburgh Kilts / Freedom Kilts / AmeriKilts rather than offend or dis-honor the Celts.

[Archangel]

In support of Jimmy Carbomb's statement, consider that before the kilt fad happened there were less than 200 clans accounted for, now there are about 2000 registered tartans. All of which speaks for the commercialization of the kilt's mythology. It's all right to buy into it but realize that it is mostly mythology. (The numbers could be more precise, somebody else can post them, I believe the point still is true.)

Wear what you like, family associations are fun and satisfying. I draw the line on personal taste issues and blood association of military tartans (with the exception of my Maple Leaf tartan which, while military, never saw blood and was intended for non-military use as well.) Those are my personal values which would be wrong to impose on others.

[clancelt]

In support of Jimmy Carbomb's statement, consider that before the kilt fad happened there were less than 200 clans accounted for, now there are about 2000 registered tartans. All of which speaks for the commercialization of the kilt's mythology. It's all right to buy into it but realize that it is mostly mythology. (The numbers could be more precise, somebody else can post them, I believe the point still is true.)

Wear what you like, family associations are fun and satisfying. I draw the line on personal taste issues and blood association of military tartans (with the exception of my Maple Leaf tartan which, while military, never saw blood and was intended for non-military use as well.) Those are my personal values which would be wrong to impose on others.

Point well taken. I don't mean to offend anyone. Just was trying to express my feelings on the matter and respond to the original post. I am far from a purist on the subject ;-)